State Transport Corporation vs Shabdsharan Pandurang Songire
2022 Latest Caselaw 5211 Guj

      C/SCA/14087/2018                                    ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14087 of 2018

==========================================================
                      STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                                 Versus
                     SHABDSHARAN PANDURANG SONGIRE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                                  Date : 16/06/2022

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.G.K.Rathod waives service of rule for the respondent no.1.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 48/2011. The petitioner before this Court is the State Transport Corporation, where the respondent no.1 was working as a Conductor.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry for loss of tray containing ticket blocks worth of Rs.27,334/-. As the Corporation had suffered loss of an amount of Rs.27,334/-, had called upon the respondent to make good the loss. The respondent paid an amount, however, instead of depositing the same at a time, deposit was made in installment within a period of 5 (five) weeks and hence, the

C/SCA/14087/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

penalty of Rs.1000/- was imposed.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has committed an error in concluding that before imposing the penalty for depositing an amount of Rs.27,334/- and an amount of Rs.1000/-, no inquiry has taken place, no procedure has been followed and no principles of natural justice are complied with and hence, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the action of the petitioner and directed refund of an amount of Rs.27,334/- with interest at the rate of 8%.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the Discipline and Appeal Rules framed for employees of Gujarat State Transport Corporation, the conduct of the petitioner was indeed misconduct, as defined in the table contained in Clause- VII of the Rules, as the loss was more than Rs.50/-. It is also submitted that as per the Schedule-A, Clause-VI, the conduct of loss of the tickets is also a misconduct, and therefore, the Corporation was entitled to proceed against the respondent, but upon the payment being made by the respondent voluntarily there was no further proceedings required. It is submitted that it was only after the payment made by the respondent that, now, after the lapse of almost 3 years, the respondent has raised an industrial dispute and the award is passed mainly on the ground that there is no disciplinary proceedings undertaken, however, the Labour Court has failed to refer to the evidence on record which includes the charge-sheet given to the respondent having sought adjournment after adjournment without remaining present, and therefore, the impugned award is required to be set aside.

C/SCA/14087/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

6. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent- workman submitted that the Labour Court is right in holding that there is no inquiry worth the name before passing the order of recovering an amount of Rs.27,334/- from the petitioner towards the loss of ticket block and the ticket tray. It is submitted that the only inquiry i.e. contemplated for which the charge-sheet was issued is regarding imposing penalty of Rs.1,000/- for delayed payment. It is submitted that in so far as the issue of delay payment is concerned, the petitioner is not challenging the same, but the challenge was to effecting recovery of Rs.27,334/- without any inquiry. It is submitted that the respondent has not committed any misconduct, as on his own, but by the loss of ticket tray, he had informed the authorities and at the behest of the authorities registered FIR also. Hence, considering the action immediately taken by the respondent, the Industrial Tribunal has directed refund of the amount.

7. Having considered rival submissions of learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the issue hinges on whether the inquiry has been undertaken or not? According to the Industrial Tribunal, in the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal has categorically hold that though there is a rule which enables the Corporation to recover the loss due to loss of tickets by the conductor, but, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any departmental inquiry initiated. In this regard, the learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the inquiry, if any, was for the purpose of the penalty of Rs.1,000/-, but there is no inquiry in so far as theft of tray and negligence of the respondent in that regard.

C/SCA/14087/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

8. The record would indicate that the charge-sheet no.267/08 was issued to the respondent which the Industrial Tribunal has referred to in the description of the documents placed on record. Such charge-sheet no.267/08 is given "mark 11/5". The reply to the statement of claim given by the petitioner clearly indicate that the petitioner has issued the charge-sheet no.267/08 dated 07.10.2008 for which the respondent has sought adjournment and the matter proceeds were accordingly adjourned between 18.02.2009, 20.04.2009, 14.05.2009, 17.06.2009 and 24.07.2009. However, in the meantime, it appears that the respondent has made the payment (See Annexure-F) in installments between 11.03.2009 to 12.08.2009. Therefore, on one hand, the respondent was seeking adjournment in the proceedings, whereas on the other-hand, the respondent was depositing the amount in installments to the tune of Rs.27,334/-.

9. In view of aforesaid, considering the date on which the payment has been made in installment, the argument of learned advocate for the respondent that the charge-sheet issued being charge-sheet no.264/08 was for the purpose of imposing penalty of Rs.1,000/- cannot be accepted.

10. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner did issue the charge-sheet to initiate the inquiry for which the respondent had sought several adjournments and in the mean-time, had deposited the amount in entirety, and therefore, there was no further cause to proceed with the inquiry. As the inquiry has stalled further period of three years, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings on the ground that there was no charge-sheet issued to the respondent and that the amount has

C/SCA/14087/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2022

been forcibly ordered to be paid appears to be clearly an afterthought, as on one hand the respondent accepted the charge-sheet and on the other hand, he deposited the amount, waited for substantial period and then challenge the proceedings on the ground that there is no departmental inquiry. Such stand of the respondent cannot be countenanced, as is pointed out from the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules framed for Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, wherein clause-VII provides for punishment for the misconduct and the misconduct, which would cause financial loss of the amount of more than Rs.50/- can be subjected to inquiry. Moreover, Schedule-A along with Rules clearly provides that the loss of printed tickets of the corporation is also misconduct, as provided in Clause-VI of Schedule-A, and therefore, the petitioner was justified to initiate the proceedings by issuing of charge-sheet and the petitioner did issue charge-sheet, and therefore, the finding given by the Industrial Tribunal regarding there being no preliminary or departmental inquiry is clearly perverse, as is against record of the case.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to be and hereby allowed. The order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (I.T.) No.48 of 2011 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) GIRISH